• 4D ultrasound strain imaging
• Abdominal aortic aneurysm
• In vivo
• Local strain

• Humans
• Aorta, Abdominal/diagnostic imaging
• Risk Factors
• Aortic Rupture/diagnostic imaging
• Aortic Rupture/complications
• Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/diagnostic imaging
• Ultrasonography/methods
• Calcinosis/diagnostic imaging

• Universidad de Cadiz

• atherosclerotic plaques
• cardiovascular diseases
• contrast-enhanced
• prostatic cancer

• Aortic calcification
• Cardiovascular risk
• Computed tomography scans
• Morphomics
• Standardization

Anastomotic leaks (AL) and gastric conduit necrosis (CN) are serious complications following oesophagectomy. Some studies have suggested that vascular calcification may be associated with an increased AL rate, but this has not been validated in a United Kingdom population.

To investigate whether vascular calcification identified on the pre-operative computed tomography (CT) scan is predictive of AL or CN.

Routine pre-operative CT scans of 414 patients who underwent oesophagectomy for malignancy with oesophagogastric anastomosis at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Calcification of the proximal aorta, distal aorta, coeliac trunk and branches of the coeliac trunk was scored by two reviewers. The relationship between these calcification scores and occurrence of AL and CN was then analysed. The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group definition of AL and CN was used.

Complication data were available in n = 411 patients, of whom 16.7% developed either AL (15.8%) or CN (3.4%). Rates of AL were significantly higher in female patients, at 23.0%, compared to 13.9% in males (P = 0.047). CN was significantly more common in females, (8.0% vs 2.2%, P = 0.014), patients with diabetes (10.6% vs 2.5%, P = 0.014), a history of smoking (10.3% vs 2.3%, P = 0.008), and a higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade (P = 0.024). Out of the 14 conduit necroses, only 4 occurred without a concomitant AL. No statistically significant association was found between calcification of any of the vessels studied and either of these outcomes. Multivariable analyses were then performed to identify whether a combination of the calcification scores could be identified that would be significantly predictive of any of the outcomes. However, the stepwise approach did not select any factors for inclusion in the final models. The analysis was repeated for composite outcomes of those patients with either AL or CN (n = 69, 16.7%) and for those with both AL and CN (n = 10, 2.4%) and again, no significant associations were detected. In the subset of patients that developed these outcomes, no significant associations were detected between calcification and the severity of the complication.

Calcification scoring was not significantly associated with Anastomotic Leak or CN in our study, therefore should not be used to identify patients who are high risk for these complications.

• Oesophagectomy
• Anastomotic leak
• Gastric conduit necrosis
• Calcification
• Computed tomography
• Ischaemia

Quantification software for coronary calcification is often used to measure abdominal aortic calcification on computed tomography (CT) images. However, there is no evidence substantiating the reliability and accuracy of these tools in this setting. Differences in coronary and abdominal CT acquisition and presence of intravascular contrast may affect the results of these tools. Therefore, this study investigates the effects of CT acquisition parameters and iodine contrast on automated quantification of aortic calcium on CT.

Calcium scores, provided in volume and mass, were assessed by automated calcium quantification software on CT scans. First, differences in calcium scores between the abdominal and coronary CT scanning protocols were assessed by imaging a thorax phantom containing calcifications of 9 metrical variations. Second, aortic calcification was quantified in 50 unenhanced and contrast-enhanced clinical abdominal CT scans at a calcification threshold of 299 Hounsfield Units (HU). Also, the lowest possible HU threshold for calcifications was calculated per individual patient and compared to a 130 HU threshold between contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CT images, respectively.

No significant differences in volume and mass scores between the abdominal and the coronary CT protocol were found. However, volume and mass of all calcifications were overestimated compared to the physical volume and mass (volume range: 0–649%; mass range: 0–2619%). In comparing unenhanced versus contrast-enhanced CT images showed significant volume differences for both thresholds, as well as for mass differences for the 130 vs patient-specific threshold (230 ± 22.6 HU).

Calcification scoring on CT angiography tends to grossly overestimate volume and mass suggesting a low accuracy and reliability. These are reduced further by interference of intravascular contrast. Future studies applying calcium quantification tools on CT angiography imaging should acknowledge these issues and apply corrective measures to ensure the validity of their outcomes.

• Aorta, Abdominal/diagnostic imaging
• Aorta, Abdominal/metabolism
• Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
• Phantoms, Imaging
• Radiation Dosage
• Reproducibility of Results
• Research Design
• Tomography, X-Ray Computed
• Vascular Calcification/diagnostic imaging

• Anastomotic leakage
• Calcium score
• Calcium volume
• Colorectal surgery
• Prognostic factor